another generalisation without context?

[the galah]

on the hrnz website theres a story that refers to a sub committee of a ratings ,handicapping and programming commttee. This group comprised of rob lawson,mike johnson and brett gray.

in section 6 of their report thay noted

"turnovers appear very strong.Note tis hard to compare  year on year as the number of race meetings and number of races has increased and we have also had cambridge changed from tuesday to thursday.The good news overwhelmingly is that turnovers certainly have NOT(their use of caps) dropped"

 

very generalised , vague,in many ways,but trying to be upbeat.

they say Its hard to compare year on year figures because of the major changes,but they did anyway because they believe the turnovers haven't dropped.

no mention of how geoblocking has effected nz wagering,how it has impacted income from overseas bookmakers who take betting on the nz harness product,the lower starter numbers,really no mention of lots of relevant stuff,because,lets face it,they probably don't have the data or were tasked with giving an in depth analysis of turnover and its impacts.

but they want to  put out there the message of don't panic,everythings going fine, as far the income harness racing will receive from wagering.

Anyway,the lack of context that i refer to can be drilled down to the most obvious important thing.

is the income from wagering going to generate enough income to maintain stake levels.

i mean,whats the point in saying,wagering has certainly NOT dropped,when if the wagering level of the previous year they were comparing it with was not generating enough incme to maintain stake levels.

In other words,its entirely possible,even probable,that if wagering has actuallly gone up in the last year,it still won't be generating enoough income to maintain the level of stakes.

so really this committee of 3 comments about wagering,really don't mean much at all.

they're simply trying to give a positive impression.

Theres a lot of that in almost every press release on the hrnz website these days. 

never an admission of any worrying data,never an admission of anything negative really.

It was like the press release from m peden about the bonus scheme.Like you could read that and think,if they aren't going to ever admit  that some things are trending negatively or that some highly promioted scheme was a failure,then why should anyone believe they ever will tell it as it is.                                                                                       

Edited 3 hours ago by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

23 minutes ago, the galah said:

The good news overwhelmingly is that turnovers certainly have NOT(their use of caps) dropped"

 

very generalised , vague,in many ways,but trying to be upbeat.

they say Its hard to compare year on year figures because of the major changes,but they did anyway because they believe the turnovers haven't dropped.

How is "Turnovers haven't dropped" a vague generalisation?  If they aren't less than last year then they haven't dropped.

[Chief Stipe]

24 minutes ago, the galah said:

i mean,whats the point in saying,wagering has certainly NOT dropped,when if the wagering level of the previous year they were comparing it with was not generating enough incme to maintain stake levels.

That's a different subject.  If they haven't dropped then at least the situation isn't getting worse.  Although it isn't a concern yet until 3 years hence.

[Chief Stipe]

26 minutes ago, the galah said:

so really this committee of 3 comments about wagering,really don't mean much at all.

they're simply trying to give a positive impression.

Theres a lot of that in almost every press release on the hrnz website these days. 

never an admission of any worrying data,never an admission of anything negative really.

Why present in negative terms that during a recession the wagering revenue has stayed the same?  Most businesses I know would be happy if that was the case - many of them have struggled the last two years or so.  However they do report improving economic conditions.